Cypres-2 fire on ground

[HighJB 0]

Do not Forget that English is not the mother tongue of most of Airtec members. This could be an incorrect use of one word.

[billvon 2,384]

>By this I understand it might or it should erase data if it detects a hard impact.

I read it as "you might lose data if you have a hard impact."

When a write to a serial EEPROM begins, it must complete or data loss can occur. If a hard impact causes a power interruption (i.e. a hit so hard that the spring contacts in the battery connector rebound and create a transient power glitch) then an EEPROM write can fail, resulting in lost data. Since generally you have to write more than one piece of info at a time, you can lose the last X samples of data.

[Nelyubin 0]

I do not remember a case when at the death of a parachutist hitting the ground in Cypres, the data has not been read.

Inclined to agree AlexV.

P.S. On the device, there were no traces of mechanical action.

[USPA 0]

I do remember a case where the data has been read, while cypres didn't even had the unit yet... They are really good...

(and alot of cases where they concluded they cypres wasn't turned on)

The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

I do remember a case where the data has been read, while cypres didn't even had the unit yet... They are really good...

(and alot of cases where they concluded they cypres wasn't turned on)

Do you have a link to any of these incidents?

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[USPA 0]

Sorry, there was a time before internet you know ;). First was a local incident . Of the second there is also a local incident, but this was before I started jumping (1995)

The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

I saw one incident when swooper fired cypress thru the turn but reserve container never popped open until he throw the rig on the ground to pack for the next jump.

Combination of tightness of the reserve tray and lenght of the closing loop locked it in.

Don't leave us hangin.

When? What rig? Was the reserve the correct size for the pack tray?

Details please.

If it's the incident I think he's talking about, it was at Elsinore about a year and a half or two years ago. Rig was an Infinity but I'm not certain of the container and reserve sizes. I'm pretty sure he discussed the incident with Kelly at VSE.

The jumper in question did a 630 on a velocity 90 loaded at about 2.4 with a Sport Cypres 2 (not a good idea.) When sent to airtec they replied, "yep... you made it fire..." and converted it to a Speed Cypres 2 free of charge before sending it back.

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Sorry, there was a time before internet you know ;). First was a local incident . Of the second there is also a local incident, but this was before I started jumping (1995)

OK if they were THAt long ago then they were Cypres ONES and probably 1st generation. They have made quite a few changes since then.

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[USPA 0]

Yes, because with the new Cypres version, they can actually test the cypress while it isn't send to them yet?

The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

[pchapman 261]

Quote

Yes, because with the new Cypres version, they can actually test the cypress while it isn't send to them yet?

Maybe there was some honest confusion in that case about which unit Airtec had?

Even if one is suspicious about Airtec, would they really think it worthwhile to issue a statement about testing a particular unit when a DZ can show they still have it sitting in their hands and not at Airtec?

What did Airtec say after actually receiving the unit?

If someone still had the unit number written down, I'd guess that Airtec would still have their records from the time.

It's tough to figure these things out years and years later...

[Nelyubin 0]

Quote

Quote

Yes, because with the new Cypres version, they can actually test the cypress while it isn't send to them yet?

Maybe there was some honest confusion in that case about which unit Airtec had?

Even if one is suspicious about Airtec, would they really think it worthwhile to issue a statement about testing a particular unit when a DZ can show they still have it sitting in their hands and not at Airtec?

What did Airtec say after actually receiving the unit?

If someone still had the unit number written down, I'd guess that Airtec would still have their records from the time.

It's tough to figure these things out years and years later...

The device in Airtek.
Years and years later, is important for Cypres. Cypres-2 other device. Chip Cypres-2 is not such as chip Cypres.

[dragon2 0]

Quote

Quote

Sorry, there was a time before internet you know ;). First was a local incident . Of the second there is also a local incident, but this was before I started jumping (1995)

OK if they were THAt long ago then they were Cypres ONES and probably 1st generation. They have made quite a few changes since then.

Yes, like now for instance they actually want the unit shipped to them so they can do the readout, instead of using their old crystal ball where they performed a "verdict" of "you pulled too low, not our fault" about a unit when it was still inside the rig and at the DZ. Good trick, that.

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[DanG 1]

Does anyone have any information on this alleged incident where Airtec made up a report? It all sounds like something someone's brother's friend's next door neighbor's barber told him that one time.

- Dan G

[Baksteen 84]

Quote

Does anyone have any information on this alleged incident where Airtec made up a report? It all sounds like something someone's brother's friend's next door neighbor's barber told him that one time.

Hm.. I dunno - sounds like a conspiracy to me. Ah bet it wuz all hushed up by the gubmint.

"That formation-stuff in freefall is just fun and games but with an open parachute it's starting to sound like, you know, an extreme sport."
~mom

[pchapman 261]

Quote

Yes, like now for instance they actually want the unit shipped to them so they can do the readout, instead of using their old crystal ball where they performed a "verdict" of "you pulled too low, not our fault" about a unit when it was still inside the rig and at the DZ. Good trick, that.

Again I'm thinking this sort of situation could be just one of miscommunication, plus a little defensiveness on the part of Airtec.

Airtec will have seen plenty of cases where someone says "it just popped!" where it later turns out "uh, I guess I did really pull way lower than I thought".

Whether it is because of a good Cypres track record, or excess pride in their own gadget, maybe Airtec after an incident says that the AAD probably fired due to a low main deployment. That's their opinion, or verdict, or whatever one wants to call it. If the jumper still strongly disagrees with that, then they need to provide additional information about the incident, and need to get that AAD sent in for analysis.

If the AAD isn't sent in, Airtec thinks everything is all hunkey dorey, all fine, since they don't hear anything more; no complaints. They log the AAD firing as just another low-pull 2-out.

Meanwhile the jumper goes away pissed off that he's been dismissed out of hand, and starts telling his friends about Airtec coming up with a magic explanation without ever seeing the unit.

Years later here we are arguing about it and having trouble distinguishing fact from fiction.


P.S.- I checked and was told that Airtec still has the Moscow ground firing incident (the original thread topic) under investigation and is trying to get additional info about what happened from those at the DZ.

Edit:
P.P.S. - Despite the big improvements made by AAD manufacturers to overcome static electricity issues, and given that the Cypres may not have recorded setting off the cutter, I gotta wonder how cold and dry the air was on that February day in Moscow. Might be on the upper end of bad days for static charge buildup.

[Nelyubin 0]

Quote

P.P.S. - Despite the big improvements made by AAD manufacturers to overcome static electricity issues, and given that the Cypres may not have recorded setting off the cutter, I gotta wonder how cold and dry the air was on that February day in Moscow. Might be on the upper end of bad days for static charge buildup.

http://rp5.ru/archive.php?wmo_id=27613&lang=en

Minimum level of humidity that day was 60%

[Nelyubin 0]

Received another answer Airtek.
***We are also very surprised. We really try to solve the problem.
We do not say that this can not happen, but it is very strange that there is no data.
So we are really interested in that incident, but need all the information from the guy who jumped that rig, directly, in order to get to any conclusion. That is why Regina send the letter to our dealer (and only to him, because he was the only contact to the guy) but till today there was no reaction and no answers to the questions.

I just talked with Helmut. He is every day together with our technicians now to figure out what probably happened. We really never had a Cypres fire with out any datas. So this would be the first case. We do not say, that it can not happen, but it is very, very strange.

[riggerpaul 1]

If the cutter fires from static electricity, does it still test as "fired" at the next Power On Self Test?

Do we know? - Is the cutter test just checking continuity across some sort of an ignition filament?

[Nelyubin 0]

Check the electrical resistance of a conductor.

[Nelyubin 0]

Guys. As far as I know, Airtek has sent the device to the dealer together with the first message. How they are going to solve a problem with defect? Ten thousand precisely such devices in our systems.

[Frankyspanky 0]

Why is everybody that was so quick to attack Argus and Vigil so silent on this particular issue?

It seems this is the worst failure of all so far in the AAD market. The unit failed to work within it's perameters, it failed to lag any data and it put lives in danger.

Is the community going to accept the weak response from airtec on this issue?

Too many people to ground if cypres 2's are to be grounded?

Airtec do not seem to have found any damage to the unit, and it failed to work more than once.

That means any cypres 2 unit 'could' fail in the same way.

After the letter about their perfection and dilligence recently in response to the argus issue, one would expect a more comprehensive approach to their own issues.

Back a hundred years ago, especially around Woodrow Wilson, what happened in this country is we took freedom and we chopped it into pieces.
Ron Paul

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sorry, there was a time before internet you know ;). First was a local incident . Of the second there is also a local incident, but this was before I started jumping (1995)

OK if they were THAt long ago then they were Cypres ONES and probably 1st generation. They have made quite a few changes since then.

Yes, like now for instance they actually want the unit shipped to them so they can do the readout, instead of using their old crystal ball where they performed a "verdict" of "you pulled too low, not our fault" about a unit when it was still inside the rig and at the DZ. Good trick, that.

What incident was this and where was it? Where would I look for the report by Airtec?

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[USPA 0]

Fyi, dragon and I are pressumably talking about the same cypres.

The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Fyi, dragon and I are pressumably talking about the same cypres.

Then maybe you can shed some light on it. Do you know where it happened or even when it happened?

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[koppel 3]

Sparky, you have often asked people to provide information on events that are purported to have occurred. You ask in this case for the report from the manufacturer.

In April I had a ground fire of an AAD in my own loft. I reported it comprehensively to the manufacturer of the AAD and to the APF. I got a very quick response from the manufacturer in reply to my email telling me that the person that deals with these matters was ill and would respond to me when they returned to work. After two more emails from myself I have still not heard from them.

The unit has been replaced via the local dealer and the owner now has a shiny new one.

There is no report from the manufacturer so if you asked me to provide the report then I could not. By your logic then the event did not occur.

As riggers we rely on the manufacturers to be forthright and upfront with information. This is sadly not the case for any of them! They are all obtuse and secretive about events where their products either operate outside of the required parameters or fail to operate as advertised.

While I recognise that you are trying to prevent hearsay and rumour from being spread as fact you also need to acknowledge that not every event that occurs ends up with a public report that we can create a link to for all to read and say to ourselves 'see, there it is written from the factory so it must be true'

Whilst my own personal experience as a rigger is many years less than your own I have seen with my own eyes enough events occur that have never made it to the general public even though it has been reported to the relevant persons/factories/federations.

I like my canopy...


...it lets me down.